Here We Go: The Tunnel Initiative


Good old Falkenbury. SCAT is an awesome name, suggesting all at once "get outta here!" and the late great Ella Fitzgerald and dookie play all at once. Have a nice day off work.
Wait, wait...they're calling themselves "SCAT"???
@2) I know, right?
If you've got the day off work howcum you've already edited your post? Go do something fun!

You know while you're away Slog's guess-which-brother-was-dropped-on-his-head commenter team of Baconcat and Will will keep it covered for you on the McGinn/tunnel front. As usual, I'll be the catty old uncle who doesn't have a creepy little mustache but probably should.
@4) Right after I posted it, I added the sentences explaining that Campbell is the one working on this measure, and another one may be on the way. Seemed weird to leave that out.
This is performance art, right? SCAT? Bored Tunnel?
Dominic. Go. Do. Something. Fun. (not that Elizabeth Campbell isn't always good for a smile, and the notion of multiple tunnel-advisory initiatives is amusing too, so thanks for adding them.)
Oh, this is clever.

They're basically asserting the rights here of the citizenry under City law to challenge the Council and/or Mayor directly. If the Council goes against THIS initiative, they're basically saying they're against the entire initiative/referendum system and interference from the public in "their" business.

If they don't go against it, there is nothing to stop legally from them filing another initiative to force a vote on the tunnel.

Initiatives with initiatives, political Inception. When do we get to Kick the Council?
And this is how the surface supporters become useful idiots for those who want to rebuild the damn thing.
Isn't Elizabeth Campbell the same activist that tried to run against Sally Clark and later for mayor, partly because the SAM sculpture garden put up the naked father & son water feature? Isn't she the kooky activist always taking fringe positions? Dom - will you whitewash her past because you like her initiative?
Give it a week and we'll have Seven Initiatives For Seven Hills.
My bad - I mixed up Elizabeth Campbell with Judy Fenton. Elizabeth Campbell had one issue that motivated her - she wanted (and maybe still wants) to keep the viaduct where it is. This is why she's opposed to the tunnel.
Since when does a city get to vote yea or nay on a state highway passing through it? Like it or not, this is a state matter, isn't it?
Since when does a State get to force a city to pay for a State Highway built by the State Department of Transportation on State Land (or, more precisely, under sea level and under the water table under Port Land)?


Into the Ninth Gate you go, Fnarf. Bring your death's head key, I'm sure Satan will keep you safe when we have a factor 9 earthquake .... down there.
@14 Will, we have been over this. The State cannot force the City to pay. The State Constitution forbids it. So rest easy.
giffy, you're naive. :)…

The legislature has forced Seattle to pay for its own things before or has screwed up major projects, like it did here:…

Or here:…
@16 Saying if you want to do something you come up with the money is not the same as forcing us to pay.

And what did the leg have to do with Sound Transit initial fuckups? They over-promised, they had crappy leadership, but people got together and made it work.

But the fact is that Kastama can say what ever the fuck he likes, the State cannot force Seattle to pay. There is no legal authority for the State to unilaterally tax a subset of property owners or to make a City do the same.
If I dig a hole under your home to rebuild your foundation and then tell you I don't have enough money to complete it and that I won't spend any further money and that it will cost X amount to complete -- what am I doing? You have a hole under your house, it's a huge safety issue if left incomplete. Your choices are either to complete the foundation or complete the foundation.

I've created a situation where it's up to you to pay for completion, what am I doing? I'm not asking you where the money is coming from, I'm not telling you how to get the money, I'm just telling you that you're the one that has to get the money because, hey, you can't have this huge unfinished hole under your home, right?

Now add in the bank, holding the purse strings. They're tired of spending so much money on your home. They say "we won't allow any more borrowing", and they don't relent on that point ever. You have a huge hole under your home and the contractor won't pay and the bank won't even consider giving them more money.

How are you getting the money?

Are you forced to pay out of your own pocket, then?

The constitution says you can't compel a city through legislation, but it says nothing of creating a situation where taxation is unavoidable. Which is what's a likelihood in this case.

Playing dumb by saying "oh, but it's unenforceable" is like me shooting you and saying "you don't HAVE to go to the hospital and I can't make you go".
Baconcat, the tunnel isn't a "thing", it's a state highway -- an already existing state highway. Legally this isn't any different than repairing a washed out bridge in Grant County. Right?
@18 I wonder if the city could sue the state to compel them to finish paying for it in the interest of public safety.
@18 But that is a risk regardless. Any project runs the risk of going way over budget and being cancelled midway through. We can agree all we want right now on what to do, but if the shit its the fan its going to be a mess no matter what.
@19: Well, legally, sure. You can define it as a unicorn if you legally want to spice up the nomenclature. But I'm not a lawyer, and I live downtown, so my own two eyes and all the documents the state have thrown out have shown that the effects of replacement and catastrophic failure extend far beyond just the state highway itself.

Common sense does that.

Would the lateral failure of a 90' structure in Grant County be the same as the lateral failure of one in Downtown Seattle? Would the economic and social impacts be the same?